Mind, Language, and Society : Philosophy in the Real World

Rating:
Summary: Solid Philosophical Analysis
Review: As a student of philosophy, I found, first of all, Searle's methodological approach to philosophical analysis and conceptual mapping very helpful. The clarity, rigor, and logical structure that Searle writes with are to be admired. For anyone looking for well-done and well-written philosophy text, this is certainly a book to consult.

Although I am not sympathetic to analytic philosophy and its problems, this book deserves to be read and thought through. Furthermore, even though this book was intended to scratch the surface of conscienceness, language, etc., it is certainly not lacking in rigor.

Finally, Searle has an interesting philosophical tool to analyzing philosophical problems: he attempts to get past the dominant and current categorization of problems (for example, materialism and dualism when talking about the mind and constitution) and form his own way of talking about the problem (and thus forming his own category). I am not sure if the methodological approach is of any help (because it just creates another category). But I will say that his break with the traditional notions of dualism and materialism is helpful and rather thought provoking.

My one question: Even though Searle attempts to get past these traditional categories in thinking about the mind and its structure, I think that, even though he says he does not, he has a prior commitment to a naturalistic worldview. If so, fine. I just wish he was explicit. If not, then what is he?

Great book. Read it and enjoy. Simply put: this is great philosophy and done very well.

Rating:
Summary: Interesting, but Uncharitably Written
Review: Ever since I read "The Construction of Social Reality" I have admired Searle. Yet, after reading this work I am left with a foul aftertatse that i can't shake off.

Essentially, Searle is presenting a summary package of his overall philosophy and, in doing so, is also writing a sort of "introduction to philosophy" type book, where he will take the reader through the various problems of philosophy. However, he does a disservice to the uniformed reader by seriously underrepresenting his opponent's arguments. I'm not sure if he does this simply because he is writing to a more elementary reader and, thus, feels justified in brushing off the "hard" philosophical positions by using words like "preposterous" to characteristically push them to the periphery, but this is a common tactic in this book. In the very first chapter Searle classifies the "default positions" that the "common man" will undoubtedly take for granted in every day life. These are positions like naive realism, the correspondance view of truth, the referential theory of meaning, etc. He then states that it is his intention to defend these doctrines, which is fine, but he also is very upfront about his presupposition that denying any of these doctrines is obviously absurd. While in the end I'm sure it matters very little, there is still an air of unsportsman-like conduct festering in Searle's writing. Searle should know better than to commit the strawman fallacy, even if he is writing a more elementary text. It can misrepresent some serious challenges that "ought" to be given serious attention to the average reader. After reading Searle's book, one might mistakenly think that these matters are pretty much settled.

It is still an interesting read, but if this is one of your first reads as a student of philosophy I encourage you delve deeper into the issues Searle has addressed.

Rating:
Summary: Solid Philosophical Analysis
Review: For anyone familiar with contemporary analytical philosophy, they will indubitably recognize the name John Searle. Well known for taking up the Speech Act project started by the late Oxford philosopher J.L. Austin, Searle has found his niche in Mind, Language and Society: a clear and concise presentation that brings complex philosophical issues from the Ivory Tower to the casual reader (the Real World?).

This book is a very good "intermediate" philosophical text for the younger student interested in getting a more in depth look at some the many major problems that have always perplexed philosophers -- skepticism, the mind-body problem, intentionality and consciousness -- but Searle also places these issues into his own philosophical project -- a "re-invention" of enlightenment philosophy and the cartesian theatre of the mind.

I would not recommend, as others have, of using this book as a source for advanced philosophical research. Searle's other texts and papers like *Intentionality* and *Speech Acts* take these discussions a few steps further in thier analytic analysis. Also, the endnoting used in the book is not very practical for those of us who follow footnotes as crucial elements of a discussion.

All in all, however, this book is a excellent achievement of transparent style and presentation.

Rating:
Summary: Searle is interesting, but also frustrating..
Review: I have read some of the book and can say that i respect his views;but have to disagree with his summation of mind and conciousnes. how can the mind produce conciousness the mind is matter matter cannot produce.it has to be a thought first existing in conciousness first all that exist existed in mind first as thought or idea but all come from conciousness.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent and Unorthodox Introduction to Philosophy
Review: I'd like to note, first of all, that I didn't find Searle as uncharitable as some of the other reviewers here. He did give a few low blows, but I think his arguments appeared as straw-man's because rather than refute a lot of the other claims, he was integrating them subtly: dropping off parts which were unecessary and then using the leftovers to create a greater and more encompassing theory. He never goes into depth of why he finds the parts of theories credible that he does, as this book is not intended for deep analysis. The reader must simply take Searle's word for it at times to understand what he is getting at (Searle does provide a nice "Further Reading" section at the end for readers who are more interested in the "why's" behind his arguments).

Which leads me into the content of his book...

This book is a modern introduction to more recent philosophical issues. Searle sums up in the first chapter most of the out-standing problems in the field that remain unsolved from the last few hundred years. These include the mind-body problem, skepticism, realism, and issues relating to consciousness such as binding and intentionality. Searle has an interesting perspective in that he tries to alleviate conflicts by "going behind the issue and merging premises." With this method he finds complete theories that integrate many perspectives that before seemed contradictory.

The writing of this book is not as thick as his other works. Most of his language is quite precise and his arguments are logically spelled out. The analogies are simple for easy understanding; more advanced readers will probably want to contemplate further implications of Searle's ideas than he discusses.

Searle is yet another voice in the last few decades that has shown a tendency towards integration to solve logical issues. This seems to be a trend with many other authors, and might be called the "leading edge" of philosophical thought right now. The book takes the reader from step one, and slowly builds up a view of reality that integrates mind, society, and language exquisitely.

And if you happen to be a proponent of one of the many theories Searle disagrees with, try to be patient, and see where he's going. He does use a condescending tone now and then. But other than that, recommended...

Rating:
Summary: A brilliantly clear summary of Searle's entire philosophy
Review: John Searle has presented brilliantly original basic theories in the philosophy of language, mind, and the nature of institutional reality. This book summarizes this work, and very importantly, shows the interconnections and hierarchical arrangement of his ideas. Those new to Searle should read this as *the* introduction to his work; those familiar with his work will profit from the arrangement of all of his theories into a single, fully integrated, philosophy.

Rating:
Summary: A Philosopher for the Real World
Review: John Searle is one of America's most prominent philosophers. Although he always writes clearly, some of his works (such as Speech Acts and Intentionality) are of an unavoidably technical nature. However, here he distills his work there (and in other places) down to its essence. This work then is an excellent introduction to his thought as well as an excellent introduction to philosophy. Searle is particularly good when he attacks scepticism. I don't, however, agree with his apparent agnosticism [pps. 36-37].

Rating:
Summary: Realism Wins!
Review: This book is an excellent summation of Searle's thought. The first section is an attack on antirealist (i.e., there are no facts in the world independent of facts we construct with thoughts and language) strains in contemporary intellectual circles that is right on the money. The next section reiterates Searle's position that consciousness is a biological phenomenon and the product of the brain. While I think that Searle avoids ontological issues, his main aim is to do away with the Cartesian (i.e., the mind is a distinct substance from matter) framework that haunts the mind-body debate.

Finally, Searle presents his thoughts on how social and institutional facts (like "money", "points in a ballgame", "marriage", etc.) enter into the world. The conclusion of the book talks about what the role of philosophy is and how philosophy makes progress. That is, Searle explains the importance of philosophy.

Rating:
Summary: Interesting, but Uncharitably Written
Review: This book is subtitled 'Philosophy in the Real World'. This is inaccurate. The real world and ultimate reality, according to Searle, is the world of physics and chemistry and the fields and forces of nature. With his mind made up from the start, this is not philosophy (which would not take such a dogmatic position) but a theory of consciousness according to science.
This is fine if it is what we have come to expect from science, but a tragedy if it represents the philosophical position. It may be that philosophy has succumbed to the pressure and become absorbed into the service of science, but this view of consciousness is notable for its etiolated view of reality, excluding much that is fundamental to an understanding of it.
From its own standpoint as a piece of work concerned with the workings of the mind, it is reasonably clear as far as it goes, and does not say anything that is new or radical when considered alongside the mass of literature that already surrounds it. However, it feigns difference with other writers such as Daniel Dennett since they are more or less of one accord with basic assumptions, or default positions as Searle calls them.
The reason I say this is simple enough. It is odd to hear so much concerning the nature of consciousness, and yet never a reference to death.
There is a simple reason why this is significant. In the absence of death, we would not need to reproduce. In the absence of that, there would be no need to experience desire. Yet the closest Searle manages to get to this is by the metaphor of digestion and the usual comparisons with motor cars.
Of course, desire and consciousness are not the same thing, but the question is, could one arise or emerge without the other. If not, then the presence of death in each molecule of us has an active function, even though it is unconscious.
But these are the real philosophical issues and the fact that they get no mention at all is very worrying. Consciousness is turned into a phenomena like any other inert process that has all reference to death stripped out of it to make it scientifically amenable. Out of this one gets a sense that science is not so much concerned with the nature of reality, but a reality that does not need to consider the concept of death as an activity, which is more illusory than the delusions Searle points out are unreal (such as the experience of being in love).
To discuss consciousness without death as part of its content is virtually a hollow pursuit, for no matter how many properties one may find in it, one is eventually forced to talk of nothing more than brain processes and bio-mechanisms. Such study provides insight that may help in the treatment of brain-damaged patients etc, but this usefulness should not be read as a synonym for understanding, unless we equate philosophy with a kind of science-waiting-in-the-wings. Certainly there are many types of consciousness, and different forms of intention etc, but we should not be fooled into thinking this to be philosophy in the real world, and it does not move our understanding forward by an inch, simply because we have identified many such states. No, this is not philosophy in the real world, but science in an idealised form in a world that is deathless.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent Summary of Searle's Work
Review: This is a typically clear and compelling book from this distinguished philosopher. It is an excellent summary of Searle's work and can be read profitably by those unfamiliar with his books. Readers familiar with Searle will find little novel but Searle's effort to link his views into a coherent whole is very interesting and worth reading. In this book Searle is concerned not only with describing and synthesizing his prior work but also with illustrating his approach to philosophical problems. This approach can be best seen in his discussion of consciousness. Searle attacks this problem by attempting to give an account that seems to take known facts as a point of departure and avoids use of traditional categories of analysis, such as casting the problem in the form of the mind-body problem. This section is particularly successful and can be read easily as a stand alone document. I believe the sections on challenges to realism and the construction of social reality are also particularly good and can also be used readily as stand alone documents. Another issue very important to Searle is clarity of presentation, and this work, like his prior books, is very well written. At one point in this book Searle mentions that he is working on a new book on rationality. There is no one better qualified to study this subject.